I meant boring presidents, who neither put us into financial collapse, nor into a world war. Not those who would actually implement the policies of the 19th century.
One of the potential advantages of representative democracy is that you can elect a representative, then go back to your normal life trusting that he or she would stand for your interests and those of the nation. Wouldn’t that be nice?
Laying the ground work for the civil war… by allowing southern slave holders to get help from northern non-slave states in returning people fleeing oppression to most likely a violent retribution for daring to leave a life of violence and brutality.
Hayes:
Laying the ground work for post-reconstruction segregation by pulling out federal troops at the expense of African Americans.
That’s ONLY ever been true of SOME white men. ONLY. For the rest of us, it’s a constant struggle to be able to have a normal boring life.
Then it would be something to aspire to. I wish for every one of us, the opportunity to live boring but happy lives, if we should choose to do so. I would prefer political candidates who facilitate that. I do not actually wish the 19th century on any of us.
One more, @reactionabe: Howard Schultz, former Starbucks CEO, a “centrist” lifelong Democrat mulling to run as an independent. Both sides blah, blah, blah; America cannot afford universal health care bullshit.
At least Howard Schultz will attract Trump voters too. A huge part of the Trump mythos is wrapped up in the two absurd concepts of billionaires being ubermensch and that the government needs to be run like a business.
EDIT
Not to mention Starbucks has gotten a name for itself for not promoting racism but looking the other way. Even with their nearly all-white employee race relation summits trying to fix things.
Maybe… I’m just tired of the stupid timeline, ya know. I mean, how ignorant are people that they really think that the far left has taken hold of the democratic party and is just as bad as the GOP. I think it does show how far to the right the overton window has shifted… but most people aren’t going to see that at all.
Oh it’s idiotic, but most people want things things Schultz is saying the US cannot provide because it threatens people like him. The only potential downside is if it encourages someone terrible like Biden to run.
I suppose that if you’re a former Trump voter who’s tired of Trump but wants something Trump-esque, you’re enough of a moron to vote for a vehemently anti-Trump anti-Republican centrist and think “it’s kinda the same because they’re rich and rich people must be smart!”
Billionaires get automatic attention from voters. A random rich guy basically flipped a coin to figure out which party primary he wanted to enter in the Michigan governor primary and immediately rose to the top of the polls, only losing face when journalists published proof he was only interested in buying a political position.
So he’s going to run outside of the two parties? That, history has proven, pretty much never works out for this candidate. Could get a Ross Perot like scenario though and that can get chaotic. Interesting times. My money’s still on this whole idea collapsing though, third party runs are usually a trainwreck.
I say he draws more center right votes from Trump than any from the Dems, so you know what? Fine, let him run. I say if you give non-evangelicals a toxic neoliberal out, they’ll take it. They’d never vote for a progressive candidate (stage whisper: Not that the Dems are going to run one), but they might decide that their mayonnaise is just a little spicier voting for a radical centrist.
SEATTLE—Expressing concerns that Democratic and Republican parties no longer represented people like him, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz revealed Monday that he was considering an independent presidential run after finding no initial support among any American voter groups. “The complete lack of support for my…